[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:13918) on 24 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13918]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No.14719/2025
Dinesh S/o Mangilal Jat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Pal,
Police Station Bassi, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (Lodged
Indistrict Jail,chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through CBN
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Nahar, Spl. PP for CBN
Mr. Gopal Singh Shekhawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
24/03/2026
This third application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has
been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection
with F.I.R. No.07/2024 registered at Police Station CBN
Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections
8/18 of NDPS Act.
The second application for bail filed by the petitioner being
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2608/2025 was dismissed
as not pressed vide order dated 26.03.2025 while granting liberty
to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after statements of
the Investigating Officer are recorded before the competent
criminal court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, on 14.03.2024, Sub-Inspector Shakeel Ahmed Khan,
acting on information regarding illegal opium, along with his team,
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:29:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13918] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14719/2025]
arrived at residence of Dinesh Jat at Panchal ke Paal. A search was
conducted in the presence of Dinesh Jat who was standing near a
swift car bearing registration No.RJ09-CC-2032. The police team
recovered contraband - opium weighing 12 kilograms from 5
polythene bags. The petitioner - Dinesh was arrested on the spot
as he was not in possession of any valid licence to hold the said
contraband.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that in the present case
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act pertaining to search and
seizure proceedings were not complied with by the Investigating
Agency. To substantiate this contention, attention of the Court was
drawn towards the statements of the Investigating Officer wherein
he has admitted to the fact that the after preparing seizure memo,
the rest of the search and seizure proceedings were
conducted/completed at CBN office and not at the spot of
recovery.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
Sub-Inspector Shakeel Ahmed was the one who has received the
information regarding illegal opium and he was also made part of
the team formed to conduct search and seizure proceedings at
residence of the petitioner. Despite he was made part of the
investigating team, this action of the Investigating Agency defeats
the very foundation of fairness in investigation and fair trial, as it
necessarily postulates that informant and investigator must not be
the same person.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:29:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13918] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14719/2025]
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.03.2024; no recovery is
due to be made from the present petitioner; investigation in the
matter has already been concluded; challan has been filed before
the competent criminal court; and the trial of the case is likely to
take a sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of
bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. He submitted that contraband
greater than commercial quantity has been recovered from the
conscious possession of the present petitioner. The rigours of the
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case,
therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegation levelled
against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged
on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, and after perusing the statements of
the investigating officer and other witnesses, this Court prima
facie finds that contraband greater than commercial quantity has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the present
petitioner.
So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding non-compliance of mandatory provisions of
the NDPS Act in conducting search and seizure proceedings is
concerned, this Court finds that the Investigating Officer who was
also part of the search and seizure team, in his court statement,
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:29:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13918] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14719/2025]
has specifically stated that a large number of villagers had
gathered at the place of recovery and in order to avoid any
untoward incident and to maintain law and order, the remaining
part of the seizure proceedings was completed at the office of
CBN. It is a settled proposition of law that while compliance of
safeguards under Sections 42, 43 and 52 of the NDPS Act is
mandatory in nature, the same has to be appreciated considering
the factual background of each case, and particularly to avert a
law and order situation, the Investigating Agency is not precluded
from completing the procedural formalities at a different and safer
place. Thus, in the facts of the present case, such action of the
Investigating Agency cannot be said to be illegal or in
contravention of the mandatory provisions of law at this stage.
With regard to the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the informant and the Investigating Officer being
the same person vitiates the fairness of investigation, this Court is
of the view that mere identity of the informant and the
Investigating Officer, by itself, is not sufficient to discard the
prosecution case at this stage, unless it is shown that such
circumstance has caused serious prejudice to the accused. During
the course of arguments, this Court had put a specific query to the
learned counsel for the petitioner as to what prejudice has been
caused to the petitioner on account of the same; however, no
satisfactory explanation has been furnished. In absence of any
demonstrated prejudice, this Court is not inclined to accept the
said contention so as to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner
at this stage.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:29:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13918] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14719/2025]
This Court further takes note of the fact that the recovery
effected in the present case is of commercial quantity and,
therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly
attracted. Upon a prima facie assessment of the material available
on record, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged
offence, nor is there any material to suggest that he is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail. Thus, the twin conditions as
envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied in
the present case.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and looking to the gravity
and nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court
does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
Accordingly, this third bail application filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 BNSS is hereby dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
294-divya/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:29:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
